Science & Tech

Tech Titans Made Serious Mistakes, and More Censorship Won’t Right the Ship

(Dado Ruvic/Reuters)
Progressive social-media leaders were wrong about so many things; now they don’t know what to do.

It seems like each week brings yet another example of strange and amateurish Facebook censorship. Last Friday morning, the immensely popular PragerU platform tweeted that Facebook had blocked access to its videos. PragerU screen-capped the proof. By the evening, Facebook reported that it had “mistakenly” removed the videos and was restoring access.

Then, yesterday, journalist and bestselling author Salena Zito reported that Facebook seemed to be censoring a story she wrote for the New York Post detailing why many Trump supporters won’t be shaken by the Paul Manafort conviction or the Michael Cohen plea deal. Some of her readers reported that it was being marked as “spam.” Others told her that Facebook was reporting that the article “did not follow” its “Community Standards.”

Then, suddenly, the posts reappeared. In both instances there has been no satisfactory explanation from Facebook for its censorship.

Let’s draw some distinctions. When Facebook wants to systematically and intentionally censor, it can do so with ruthless efficiency. Earlier this week I wrote about how it’s not only blocking access to the website (which contains links to lawful gun designs), it’s diligently preventing speech about the site. Moreover, there was no ambiguity when it removed Alex Jones’s content from the site for “dehumanizing language.”

Moreover, it’s hard to argue that Facebook was trying to get away with stealth censorship. How can you quietly block access to articles and videos posted by people with access to other public platforms? These actions reek of errors or incompetence, not systematic silencing. But to believe that the censorship isn’t calculated isn’t necessarily consoling. Instead, it helps expose the deeper problems of our social-media platforms. Our progressive tech titans built corporations based on a number of false premises, and now they have a tiger by the tail. They don’t know what to do, they’re bumbling around, and there is collateral damage.

Let’s back up a moment. Much of the Internet has been built by people who aspired to bring the world together. They wanted to “make the world a better place” (to use the line hilariously and constantly satirized on HBO’s Silicon Valley) by connecting people, facilitating relationships, and putting the sum total of the world’s knowledge at every person’s fingertips. I’m oversimplifying, of course, but there was (and often still is) an infectious optimism — about people, about the possibilities of technology — that lies at the foundation of virtually every one of our modern tech goliaths.

Behind much of this idealism is certain understanding of human nature — one that at the very least posits that connection will be good, problems can be managed, and virtue will ultimately win.

But what if this understanding is fundamentally flawed? What if the net effect of all this connection is that human flaws are magnified perhaps even more than human virtues, problems can’t either be coded or managed away, and whether good or evil ultimately wins is in constant doubt? What if the result is a product that people feel they can’t do without (great for the bottom line) but that also magnifies anger and division, leading to a constant outcry from customers distressed by their experience with your product?

And then what if your product serves the whole nation, but your colleagues and peers almost exclusively reflect the ideas and worldview of a small slice of the progressive elite?

Well then, you’ve got a well-nigh unsolvable problem. It’s going to be clear, soon enough, that algorithms and automation won’t solve your problem. Smart people from all sides can game the system and spot its biases, quickly. Complaint-based systems are going to create large-scale problems with heckler’s vetoes, incentivizing bad-faith spam reporting or bad-faith hate-speech claims. (Remember, your user base isn’t as virtuous as you thought.)

Then, failing automation and punting your policing to users, your top-down subjective, technocratic solutions — relying on mechanisms such as, say, a “trust and safety council” or “hate speech” policies — will be just as unsatisfactory. If you satisfy the internal constituencies and staff your team with people who largely reflect the company’s core ethos, then you’ll craft “hate speech” or “dehumanizing language” guidelines that target or alienate an immense portion of your customer base (while leaving the hateful or dehumanizing language of ideological allies intact). But make your technocrats more ideologically diverse — more reflective of the nation you’re trying to reach — and you’ll infuriate your workforce. Remember, we now live in an era when it’s just an intolerable affront in some quarters to work alongside a person who doesn’t share your worldview.

The ultimate result of all these flawed premises and all the flawed solutions is exactly the world you see before you today — a world dominated by progressive corporations that engage in a handful of explicit crackdowns and a host of confused, ad hoc, and seemingly arbitrary “mistakes” or unexplained actions that leave no one satisfied and make too many of their users long for market alternatives.

They were wrong about human virtue. They were too confident in their ability to manage the user experience of hundreds of millions of people while keeping the platform open enough to create a version of the marketplace of ideas. In short, they thought they could do better than the First Amendment, and they failed. A series of choices loom, between a miserable status quo, an alienating authoritarian future, and a more rational but less progressive regime that strikes the same kinds of balances that have benefited American culture for more than two centuries.

The fundamental viewpoint neutrality of classic First Amendment doctrine is the right refuge for the titans of social media. But is this a lesson they will ever choose to learn?

NOW WATCH: ‘Trump Slams Social-Media Firms’


David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Most Popular


Men Literally Died for That Flag, You Idiots

The American flag’s place in our culture is beginning to look less unassailable. The symbol itself is under attack, as we’ve seen with Nike dumping a shoe design featuring an early American flag, Megan Rapinoe defending her national-anthem protests (she says she will never sing the song again), and ... Read More
Politics & Policy

He Just Can’t Help Himself

By Saturday, the long-simmering fight between Nancy Pelosi and her allies on one side and the “squad” associated with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the other had risen to an angrier and more destructive level at the Netroots Nation conference. Representative Ayanna Pressley, an African-American Massachusetts ... Read More

The Plot against Kavanaugh

Justice on Trial, by Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino (Regnery,  256 pp., $28.99) The nomination and confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was the political event of 2018, though not for the reasons anyone expected. All High Court confirmations these days are fraught with emotion and tumult ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Ilhan Omar Is Completely Assimilated

Beto O’Rourke, the losing Texas Senate candidate who bootstrapped his way into becoming a losing presidential candidate, had a message for refugees who had come to America: Your new country is a hellhole. The former congressman told a roundtable of refugees and immigrants in Nashville, Tenn., last week: ... Read More
White House

On Gratitude and Immigration

Like both Rich and David, I consider it flatly inappropriate for the president of the United States to be telling Americans -- rhetorically or otherwise -- to “go back where you came from.” In consequence, you will find no defense of the president from me, either. What Trump tweeted over the weekend was ... Read More

We All Wanted to Love the Women’s Soccer Team

For the first time in my life, I did not root for an American team. Whatever the sport, I have always rooted American. And if those who called in to my radio show were representative of my audience, many millions of Americans made the same sad choice. It takes a lot for people like me not to root for an ... Read More

The ‘Squad’ Gives a Gift to Donald Trump

On Sunday, Donald Trump gave the Democrats a gift -- comments that indicate he thinks native-born congresswomen he detests should “go back” to the countries of their ancestors. On Monday, the four congresswomen handed Trump a gift in return, managing to respond to the president’s insults in some of the most ... Read More